- Hardcover: 206 pages
- Publisher: Doubleday; 1st ed edition (March 1, 1996)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 0385480512
- ISBN-13: 978-0385480512
- Product Dimensions: 1 x 6.5 x 9.5 inches
- Shipping Weight: 1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
- Average Customer Review: 3.8 out of 5 stars See all reviews (22 customer reviews)
- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,001,338 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $3.99 shipping
+ Free Shipping
+ $3.99 shipping
Eyewitness to Jesus Hardcover – March 1, 1996
Frequently bought together
Customers who bought this item also bought
From Publishers Weekly
How reliable are the Gospel accounts on which Christianity bases its knowledge of the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth? Are they eyewitness accounts written by followers of Jesus? Or are they accounts written long after his death by Christians concerned with a new doctrine? These and other questions were thrown into sharp relief when, on Christmas Eve 1994,Times of London writer D'Ancona reported that a German scholar, Carsten Peter Thiede, using the new science of papyrology, had redated to roughly 60 CE three papyrus fragments of the Gospel of Matthew, held in Oxford's Magdalen College Library since 1901. The most far-reaching implication of Thiede's work is that the Gospel of Matthew, in addition to being the earliest Gospel written, could be an eyewitness. D'Ancona and Thiede detail the forensic science used to redate the Magdalen papyri. Thiede then challenges the critical methods?historical and textual?that have been used by scholars to establish the traditional dating of the Gospels. The authors, however, don't acknowledge that papyrology is as subject to criticism as are the methods they disparage. Nor is their argument that Matthew is the earliest Gospel a new one: the thesis has been a workable alternative to the priority of Mark for over 100 years. However, the irony of their claim?that forensic science establishes the grounds for faith?is rich, and this book is certain to provoke controversy among scholars and lay readers alike.
Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc.
From Library Journal
D'Ancona, an assistant editor at the London Times, and Thiede, the noted papyrologist, offer their side of a raging controversy over Thiede's claim to have identified a Greek fragment of the Gospel of Mark from the Dead Sea Scrolls written no later than 68 A.D. and to have redated fragments of the Gospel of Matthew to not much later. If the early dating and other evidence cited and deduced are sustained, they will demolish some of the major tenets of liberal critical New Testament scholarship by establishing that at least Mark and Matthew were written by eyewitnesses or contemporaries within a Christianity that was well developed and separate from Judaism before the destruction of Jerusalem. Thiede mounts a scathing criticism of New Testament scholars. Although the book is a window into the value, possibilities, and methods of an arcane specialty, it is written in a conversational prose accessible to any educated nonspecialist. Much background information on New Testament study and interpretation and the history of the discovery of the Matthew fragments help to maintain interest and relate the technical evidence to the reader's world. Recommended for public and academic libraries.?Eugene O. Bowser, Univ. of Northern Colorado, Greeley
Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Browse award-winning titles. See more
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
Top Customer Reviews
There is one page (2 photographs) dedicated to the three fragments, but the image is so small, that it's nearly impossible to read the uncials. A large image of a Qumran fragment was shown; the authors should have afforded the same attention to the Magdalen fragments. (Arg!)
Although the fragments in the photos are shown verso in one image and recto in the second, the fragments themselves are not identified using the numbering convention as in the text. So, it is extremely difficult to establish a correspondence with that portion of the text which analyzes the fragments. (Arg!!) With extreme difficulty I was able to identify portions of Matthew 26:31 -- [totelegei]AUTOISOIx[pantesumeis]SKANDALIS(theta)E[se(theta)e]ENEMOIEN[entenukti][TAUTE]. I could not completely make out the sacred name, the two character abbreviation, for Jesus (see "Ix" above for "IS" -- IESOUS) following AUTOIS.
Since special imagery was needed to enhance fragment 3 in order to read the uncials in line 1, an overlay showing the recovered characters would have been helpful. As it is, I cannot find the critical word "auton" (Matthew 26:22-23), or any portion thereof, on the recto. The fragment is claimned to exhibit a reading in agreement with the traditional text ([hekastos] auton "each of them") and not the critical text (eis auto "each in turn") (principally Vaticanus B). Where is the enhanced scan? I'll just have to take their word on the matter.
Worth the time and effort, to be sure, but ETJ could have been much improved. Thus 3 stars. (Does anyone know if the later publication/edition corrects these oversights/deficiencies?)
If critics who see their worldviews threatened believe otherwise, they are urged to review the evidence for themselves, to see if they agree or not. The prejudicial comments and reviews attacking Thiede's scholarship do not in themselves establish an argument against his work.
Concerning the substance of d'Ancona's story, Thiede's theory that P64 and 67 are not connected to P4 is given some credence by other scholars such as Comfort. However Thiede's paleographical dating methods are found to be selective; certain letters are compared and certain other letters which would contradict Thiede's theory are not compared. (Klaus Wachtel wrote about this is in a German publication in 1995.)
D'Ancona's book rates three stars because of the depth of information he includes on paleography and ancient writing practices. However it should be noted that few scholars accept